So, it looks like a sporting event in America has been blown-up by America's dear pets. Nothing surprising, you play with fire, you might get burned. Some people believe America will now do some retrospection, and reconsider its support for Caucasian militants given the fact that the latter named have links to international Islamist movements; which are just as hostile towards America as they are towards Russia. I believe that this kind of thinking is wrong and naive.

The US supports all types of Islamist militants when their primary enemy happens to be America's adversary. The powers that be in America do not care about the few Americans killed by an attack of few defective individuals. The Tsarnaev brothers might be little inconvenient for some people at the moment, but in the long run, the prize of supporting these kinds of people is just more important than few dead Americans. Or to make my self even more clear; the fall of Assad, or Russia losing its natural Southern Border in the Caucasus, or simply making Russia look bad, are worth more than few dead Americans. 

Do you honestly think that all of the fronts for Russia-bashing over its mistreatment of Caucasian militants, which were established across the West over the last two decades, the kind of people who brought a large number of Chechens to the West (not just to America) to parade them as victims of inhumane Russians, would just close shop and admit they were wrong? I doubt that!

Speaking of fronts, it looks like the elder brother Tamerlan had links to some very interesting people. The Russian newspaper Izvestia claims that it has documents from the counterintelligence department of the Ministry of Interior of Georgia. According to them, in summer 2012, Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended several seminars organised by the Georgian "Fund of Caucasus" together with the American "Jamestown Foundation."

The "Fund of Caucasus" was established in the wake of the 2008 Ossetian War to serve as front for all types of anti-Russian individuals in the region. And the "Jamestown Foundation" has a long tradition of being a warm place for Russophobes of all colours. One of the founders and heads of Jamestown was a Ukrainian nationalist, Roman Kupchinskiy, who headed the nationalist publishing house: "Prolog Research And Publishing Inc." between 1978-1988. Prolog was founded by Bandera's right-hand man Mykola Lebed', the architect of the Volhynian Massacre, (a mass ethnic cleansing of Volhynian Poles and Czechs) and was funded by the CIA.  

Here is an example of a fine specimen:

The video was originally posted on Novyy Region...

While I am aware that many of my readers would not understand what this ethno-nationalist bydlo "expert" has to say, I decided to only translate that part which is relevant to the topic of this post, that is "measuring skulls". Translating the rest of that drivel would derail this post...

But first allow me to introduce the man in the video above, his name is Vasyl' Laptiychuk, and he represents an organisation called the "Institute of Russia". This "Institute of Russia" does not appear to be very prominent online. Although its leader appears to be asked for his expert opinion by the likes of Radio Liberty, the organisation has a low internet profile. I found some information on it here. I quote:

Інститут Росії є українською громадською організацією, котра об’єднує фахівців у сфері досліджень внутрішньої та зовнішньої політики РФ, російсько-українських відносин та проблематики української зовнішньої та внутрішньої політики, коли це пов’язано з фактором Росії.

Translation:

The Institute of Russia is a Ukrainian citizen organisation which unites specialists in the area of research into internal and external policy of the Russian Federation, Russian-Ukrainian relations and problems of Ukrainian external and internal policy when it is connected to the Russian factor.

I really wonder who those other specialists united in the "Institute of Russia" are, because Laptiychuk's expertise is a bit special. Here I translate some of the rants mentioned in the above video as promised:

The issue is not that the Russians are worse, the issue is that they are different. Fedir Vovk, a prominent Ukrainian anthropologist, who in the second half of the nineteenth century established anthropological schools in all Western Europe, because he was fleeing the Russian Tsar, he returned in 1916 to Ukraine where he accidentally died suddenly. What is the essence of his research? It is that not only folklore, not only mythology, not only ornaments on clothing, not only funerary (rites), not only other important things in man's life, but the shape of skulls, the shape of bones differ radically from Russians among Ukrainians. 

Vovk was an interesting scholar, and there is at least one book from him which I personally would like to get my hands on. But his racial theories are not exactly the stuff that he should be remembered for today, and he certainly is not. And who apart from Ukraine enthusiasts like me actually remembers Fedir Vovk? I sense that Laptiychuk's account of Vovk's contribution to the development of West European anthropology is a little bit overblown. It is true that Vovk was active in Paris for a time, but I doubt whether he could be credited with establishing anthropological schools throughout Western Europe.

One can say that Vovk was a product of his time, I don't know what Laptiychuk's excuse is. But then again, one should not dismiss Laptiychuk's reliance on authorities of the past. One other example of Ukrainian skull-measurer was no other than Fedir Vovk's contemporary, the historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky. In his 1906 book: Ocherk Istorii Ukrainskogo Naroda ("Outline of the history of the Ukrainian nation"), we read the following:

Ukrainian ethnic type differs from its closest relatives, the Greater Russians (the people we now refer to simply as Russians), and Belorussians... by anthropological specificities in close meaning, that is by physical arrangement of the body (the form of skull, height, correlation between parts of the body).   

See pgs.14-15

An interesting work from 1934 entitled: Rasovaya Teoriya na Sluzhbe Fashizma ("Racial Theory In Service Of Fascism") mentions other examples of this kind thinking. Unfortunately, this article, just like the writings of Vovk and Hrushevsky, is a product of its time as well, and the authors themselves are in a service of another totalitarian ideology, which in my opinion degrades the intelectual quality of the piece. But nevertheless, it is filled with verifiable facts and properly referenced, and therefore if you can get over the Stalinist tone of the piece, it will reward you with some very interesting findings. 

The map comes from some Anglo press publication (the website says it was The Sun) where it was featured in 1917, at the event of Ukraine being given autonomy. Personally I don't know why they did not include Volhynia in the provinces of Ukraine, as far as I am concerned it was also included in the Ukrainian autonomy. Perhaps because the Polish laid claim to that territory.

As you can see, they also did not include any of the South-Eastern regions of contemporary Ukraine. This is because these regions were never included in Ukrainian autonomy by the Provisional Government, and likewise local Bolshevik governments later rejected being included in Ukraine. Throughout its brief existence, the Ukrainian state had a tenuous hold over these areas, and they were only included in Ukraine following the civil war, by the "good will" of Moscow. 

Information Agency Regnum reports that the Ukrainian prime minister Mykola Azarov complained to Wendy Sherman from the Department of State about Ukrainian opposition's position on shale gas drilling. I translate:

How touching, [all of the parties] have united against a government project of shale gas development, antisemitic Svoboda, the Communist Party, and "Bat'kivshchina" with "Front for Change" of mister Yatsenyuk.  

What Azarov means is that the opposition to shale gas drilling in Ukraine has been rather large and diverse of late. I would personally not attribute some Russian plot to all all of the expressions of such opposition, the opposition includes Russophobic types and Russopiles as well. The issue of shale gas drilling has a far wider significance than just being relevant to relations with the Russian Federation. After all, the drilling will be done on Ukrainian territory, and the internet is replete with material on the ecological impact of such an activity which motivates the activists. This is why we see members of both the nationalist and Russophobic "Svoboda", and also Russophile movements such as the "Ukrainian choice" expressing their concern about it.

I have also noticed a female member of the "Bat'kivshchina" party, A. Kuzhel', spearheading protests in the Khar'kov area. Check out this youtube channel for more information on protests, knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian is required.

"Svoboda" led protests in Western Ukraine are already making the executives at Chevron worried, they now claim that they might abort their operations in Western Ukraine due to protests from the people. I have not noticed that any of the "Party of Regions" people would be protesting under the banner of their party, I guess the leadership of "PoR" views shale gas drilling as its pet project and therefore would not tolerate disobedience.

It also should be pointed out, that the leadership of the opposition parties is not exactly seen spearheading the protests, but my feeling is that they tolerate (to an extent) those in their ranks who engage in such protests. After all, protesting about anything under the banner of these parties makes these parties visible to the constituents, and might gather up some votes come next parliamentary elections, and also the protests in this case are directed against the "PoR", and their policy.

PS: While writing this post, I have noticed that Dr. Motyl has also written on the same topic. So I decided that I will comment on a small part of his writing:

First, even if one disregards concerns over the environmental impact of fracking, even if done properly, the fact of the matter is that properly done fracking can take place only if the authorities, the scientific community, and the local populations insist on it and the gas company understands that it will pay a hefty price for negligence. Unfortunately, neither the central nor the regional authorities in Ukraine will care much about whether fracking is pursued properly or not; Ukraine’s scientific community has no clout; and local populations are powerless. Will Shell, a European company par excellence, remain committed to the European Union’s vaunted “European values” or will it treat Ukraine as a colonial appendage of the Dutch empire? Will the EU insist that Shell be a good citizen or will it hide behind the Schengen Line? These are important questions. 

Shell is a corporation whose only interest is profit, and measures to prevent ecological damage mean extra expenses for the corporation. Expenses that the corporation would be likely to avoid if given the chance. The EU might however put pressure on Ukraine to enact measures that would safeguard ecology, the question however is whether the powers that be in Ukraine would listen to Brussels. 

According to Vladimir Kara-Murza, the Levada Center is probably the last polling agency in Russia which one can trust. As far as I see it, Levada's numbers do not differ much from those published by other polling agencies in Russia, but I do like Levada precisely because people like Kara-Murza like it. Simply put, it is very hard to claim that Levada acts as a tool of the Kremlin. In fact it is the only polling agency I consult when I want to find out about the opinions in Russian society.

In his recent post, Kara-Murza mentioned his favourite Levada poll showing Putin's support drop to only meagre 32%. But there is more to the Levada poll that Kara-Murza will never tell you about. 

The poll asks the respondents the following question:

If the elections of the President of Russia were taking place the upcoming (In Russian: "ближайшее", or "nearest") Sunday, would you vote in them, and if yes, who would you vote for?

And Putin's supporters beat everyone on that table, even the people who would not participate in the elections, who gathered 23%, and the people who had difficulty giving a definite answer, who gathered 17%. Normally polling agencies do not publish these numbers in their ratings of political parties or presidential candidates, but Levada is special in this respect. 

I believe that Kara-Murza is up to something here, something that was already noticed by Mark Adomanis, and that is that Putin's approval rating has been steadily falling and is now at an all time low. However, Adomanis comes to the wrong conclusion that this means that Putin's position is somehow weakened, although he does admit that his approval rating is still above 60%.

In my opinion, Putin's position would really be weakened if there appeared a contender who would present a serious challenge to Putin. It is clear from the Levada poll that none of the contenders mentioned by name present serious challenge to Putin. This way, Putin's support can drop as low as 20%, (in Levada's numbers) and his position would still be strong in the absence of a worthy challenger.

The emergence of such a figure that would channel the various disappointments many Russians have with Putin into electoral support is not at all impossible. However, I seriously doubt that figure would be anything like Kara-Murza and the heroes of his blog.

In the wake of the "Magnitsky Act", the Russian government planned some measures to counter this American law. The most spoken about was the ban on adoptions of Russian children by Americans. I am in fact in a complete agreement with this measure, but if you read Vladimir Kara-Murza and other liberal pundits, you might get the feeling that the ban on adoptions was the only measure the Russian government undertook in retaliation against the "Magnitsky Act". This is incorrect, the ban on adoptions was only a footnote in a far larger package of measures undertaken by the Russian government.

The talk about reciprocal measures few months ago made me think of an interesting phenomenon. A group of US Congressmen would arrive in Moscow every now and then, and meet with Russian opposition activists. Astounding behaviour really, which I am sure would not be tolerated by American authorities for a second had Russian parliamentarians visited the US and met with Occupy Wall Street activists, or Ron Paul supporters for instance. My personal guess is that the Russian authorities allowed this outrage to take place only to use the video footage and online conversations generated by these events for propaganda purposes.

I thought to myself that a good way to answer the "Magnitsky Act" would be to deny these Congressmen entry to Russia. Now it seems that somebody in position of power in Russia thought about doing something similar. Meet the victim of this type of thinking...

The man above is Chris Smith, A Republican Congressman from New Jersey, a chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee on human rights, and most importantly, the original sponsor of the "Magnitsky Act". The last fact is why he was denied a Russian visa recently. He thinks so, and I have no reasons to think otherwise either.

What I am puzzled by however is that after engaging in endeavour such as the "Magnitsky Act", Smith had the nerve to apply for a Russian visa. 

So I found this video at one of my favourite blogs:

The video is from a meeting, which took place in Chicago, of the Kiev-Mohyla Foundation in America, a foundation that is connected to the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, a Ukrainian university. The participants express their concern about academic freedom, and as usual, the Minister of Education Tabachnyk. 

I recall reading something of this kind on Dr. Motyl's blog recently, but I have not investigated the issue. What I am more concerned is the statement made in the video above, that the Kiev-Mohyla is one of the oldest universities in the World.

I have grown used to claims of anything Ukrainian being very old. We had Ukrainian language which is closest to Sanskrit, and which was spoken by Apostle Andrew. Trypillian super-ancient Ukrainians. The oldest democratic constitution which by the way banned Judaism and Islam. And of course now Kiev-Mohyla is being presented as the one of the oldest universities in the World.

But the claim of Marta Farion in the video above is simply not true!

The original Kiev-Mohyla Academy never was a university. It was what in Russian is called: "dukhovnaya shkola", or "spiritual school". Most of the subjects taught dealt with theology, philosophy, and relevant languages such as Greek. It started as a college, it was elevated to an academy, but never assumed the status of a university. It was an institution of higher learning, but not a university. 

During the Bolshevik rule, the powers that were had no time for theologians and the place was closed. And only following Ukraine's independence was the institution reestablished, this time as a university. The university has apparently grown very old since 1992. But even as an institution of higher learning the original academy can only claim to be one of the oldest in Eastern Europe, and it existed since the seventeenth century. For comparison, the oldest university in the Czech lands was established in the fourteenth century, and English universities even earlier than that. 

I will translate those demands listed there. I found the original article on my favourite Ukrainian Russophile blog, and the author provides some of his comments to these demands, I will translate those too (loosely), and provide some commentaries of my own. Another article at Glavcom reports that these 19 points (or 19 benchmarks as the EU officials refer to them) are not mentioned in official documents, but the Ukrainian government and the opposition were informed about them. 

I quote the fist of the benchmarks:

1. Виконання рекомендацій, визначених в остаточному звіті спостережної місії ОБСЄ/БДІПЛ щодо парламентських виборів в Україні.

 Translation:

1. To enact recommendations marked in final report of the OSEE/ODHIR regarding parliamentary elections in Ukraine. 

That is to change the electoral system in Ukraine. I wonder, did the EU demand the same of Turkey or of Morocco, or of Egypt?

Quoting the next one:

2. Подолання зафіксованих недоліків у проведенні парламентських виборів в Україні 28 жовтня 2012 року

Translation:

2. Overcoming the recorded deficiencies in conducting parliamentary election [held] on 28 October 2012 in Ukraine.

This is totally impossible to do because the parliamentarians are already elected, and the period for court appeals had already passed.

Quote:

3. Схвалення Виборчого кодексу України 

Translation:

3. Approving the Electoral codex of Ukraine

Quote:

4. Забезпечення збалансованого доступу учасників виборів до засобів масової інформації

Translation:

4. Securing balanced mass media access for participants in elections.

This is impossible to do because there are no elections being held, we would have to wait until the next round of elections for anything to be done in this area. But it is striking that the EU would ask for anything of the kind. Candidates without proper financing don't get more than few minutes on state TV to argue their case even in full members of the EU. I for instance do not see much of a difference between campaigning in Ukraine and campaigning in the Czech Republic.

Continuing:

5. Проведення повторних виборів в одномандатних виборчих округах, в яких не визначено переможця

Translation:

5. Repeating elections in single mandate electoral districts where the winner was not determined.

This is a very interesting point, but I quite do not get it. More information on the context of it would be helpful.

But the next one is even more interesting, I quote:

6. Вирішення питання політично вмотивованих вироків без зволікань

Translation:

6. Immediate solution of the question of politically motivated [criminal] sentences

And of course those sentences that are politically motivated would be determined by the EU. I have to ask a question here: "Did the EU break Association Agreement with Turkey over the Ergenekon affair?" I think they should if they are so concerned about politically motivated trials.

Quote:

7. Швидке виконання рішень Європейського суду з прав людини

Translation:

7. Fast implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Now, that is a reasonable demand here.

But what follows is not, I quote:

8. Виконання рекомендацій Ради Європи стосовно умов утримання та медичної допомоги особам, що перебувають під вартою

Translation:

8. Implementation of recommendations of the Council of Europe regarding conditions of confinement and medical help to persons which are held in custody

Why does this sound like the grievances of a certain celebrity prisoner in Ukraine? Conditions of confinement and medical help are however dependant on financial resources which that celebrity prisoner has no shortage of. Same cannot be said about the Ukrainian government however. Who is going to pay for new comfortable prisons and medical stuff in them?

Let's continue:

9. Забезпечення належного впровадження нового Кримінального процесуального кодексу, нового законодавства з питань адвокатури та створення Національного превентивного механізму проти тортур

Translation:

9. Guaranteeing proper adoption of new Criminal procedural codex, new legislation regarding questions of the Bar, and implementing National preventive mechanism against torture 

I wonder if any of those Middle Eastern and North African countries that already have an Association Agreement were asked to implement preventive mechanisms against torture?

Quote:

10. Перегляд у тісних консультаціях з Радою Європи/Венеціанською Комісією закону про прокуратуру 

Translation:

10. Revision of the law about the prospector's office in close cooperation with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission 

Quote:

11. Перегляд у тісних консультаціях з Радою Європи/Венеціанською Комісією Кримінального Кодексу України

Translation:

11. Revision of the Ukrainian Criminal Codex in close cooperation with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission

Quote:

12. Перегляд у тісних консультаціях з Радою Європи/Венеціанською Комісією закону про «Вищу раду юстиції»

Translation:

12. Revision of the law about the "Highest council of justice" in close cooperation with the Council of Europe/ Venice commission 

Quote:

13. Перегляд у тісних консультаціях з Радою Європи/Венеціанською Комісією закону про судоустрій та статус суддів

Translation:

13. Revision of the law about the judicial system and the status of the courts in close cooperation with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission 

All this revisions are great but it is obvious that they would take some time, and this postpones the signing of the Association Agreement.

Quote:

14. Вжиття кроків у реформуванні міліції

Translation:

14. Initiating measures regarding police reform

For this you need to pay the policemen good salaries so that quality officers have the desire to work for the police. And we all realise how much money the Ukrainian state (which lives on foreign loans) has.

Quote:

15. Реалізація конституційної реформи у відповідності до міжнародних стандартів 

Translation:

15. Realisation of a constitutional reform which conforms to international standards

Quote:

16. Здійснення реформ, необхідних для підготовки до започаткування поглибленої та всеохоплюючої зони вільної торгівлі

Translation:

16. Enacting reforms necessary for preparation for initiating the deep and all-encompassing (comprehensive) zone of free trade

This is a large package of laws, and once again, this would take time which postpones the signing of the Association Agreement.

Quote:

17. Забезпечення ефективної боротьби з корупцією

Translation:

17. Securing an effective fight against corruption

This is impossible under the present government, and it is doubtful that any of the alternative political forces would be more effective in their fight against corruption.

Quote:

18. Здійснення реформи системи управління державними фінансами, включаючи розширення повноважень Рахункової палати

Translation:

18. Realisation of reform of the system administering government finances, including expanding the power of the Chamber of Accounts

Quote:

19. Вжиття рішучих дій для покращення ділового та інвестиційного клімату

Translation:

19. To enact decisive actions in order to improve business and financial climate

(The translation of the benchmarks ends here)

In a comment underneath my recent post on a similar topic, I have said that the EU demand to release Tymoshenko will not be fulfilled by Yanukovych, and after a while the EU will simply tell Ukraine that it has to wait. After reading the above, I see that EU demands go very far beyond jailed politicians.

My little conspiracy theory might not be that far from the truth in fact. The EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, criticised  the Ukrainian government for unsatisfactory effort in enacting reforms. And also has warned that if Ukraine will not sign the Association Agreement in November this year, Ukraine would have to wait until 2016. Since most of the demands that we see above cannot be satisfied until the end of this year, Ukraine will have to wait until 2016.

How long will the Ukrainian government be willing to play this game with the EU? 

Recently the "Reporters Without Borders" have published their yearly press freedom ratings which has seen Russia at 148th place (out of 179), and Ukraine at 126th. While Ukraine did a little better than Russia, guess who did even better than Ukraine? South Sudan, Algeria, and also surprisingly, Tajikistan! It is clear that there is something incredibly wrong with these ratings, and questions should be raised as to whether the ratings of "Reporters Without Borders" are even objective. Anatoly Karlin asks precisely this question in his recent article for Komsomol'skaya Pravda (see his blog for an English language version). My question is whether we should even continue to consider the "Reporters Without Borders" as a serious organisation when they rate Zimbabwe higher than Russia?

They certainly appear to have a problem with the method they use in compiling the press freedom index. The "Reporters Without Borders" have partner organisations around the world which fill in questionnaires, which they then send to Paris. This rating is not dependant so much on objective reality, but on subjective opinion of these partners. And it seems that their partners in (or for) Zimbabwe think better of their country than their partners in Russia. Hence the results that we have.

Ukrainian writer Oles' Buzina was able to put a face on Ukraine's bad ratings. Meet Oksana Romanyuk:

She is the representative of "Reporters Without Borders" in Ukraine. It was her who filled in the questionnaire which put her country's press freedom below that in the dictatorial and underdeveloped Tajikistan. He is not aware that she would consult this with other journalists. 

Buzina makes a note that in fact Romanyuk does not have much of a record of working as a journalist. She was a literary editor in UNIAN for a while but in spring 2012 she left. He was told by people in UNIAN that she is working as a translator for various international organisations who have branches in Kiev. 

He suggests that if she believes it is easier to work as a journalist in South Sudan, she should move there. I would personally suggest that she moves to Tajikistan, a great country, post-Soviet, the elite probably remembers Russian, the natives speak an Indo-European language written in the Cyrillic script (they still did not change it), it should be easy to learn and Oksana seems to have a talent for languages.

Buzina likewise thinks that Romanyuk finds it personally beneficial that Ukraine receives such low ratings because she can then receive some form of grants from the West to fight for the rights of journalists. Certainly, if the ratings were higher, the flow of grants might dry up. This I believe is a valid question, what motivates these people to have their countries ranked lower than Tajikistan or Zimbabwe?